(This comment is more of a general response to this post and others about Manifest than a response to what Austin has specifically said here)
I am a black person who attended Manifest, and I will say that I almost didn’t attend because of Hanania, but decided to anyway because my interest in it outweighed my disagreements with his work.
I walked past a conversation he was having where he was asked why he thinks “minorities [black people] perform so poorly in so many domains,” which did not feel great, but I also chatted to someone who runs a similar twitter as him and briefly told him my issues with it, which he was receptive to. I overall prefer cultures that give me space to have those sorts of conversations, but I do flinch a bit at the fact that my demographic is on the receiving end of so much of this. Many of the “edgy” people were super nice to me, I had fun conversations about other things with some of them, and their presence didn’t take away from my overall experience. I felt fine after those interactions, but many people wouldn’t. Perhaps they don’t “belong” at manifest, but that explanation isn’t very satisfying to me.
I think I’m much more tolerant of this sort of dynamic than many super reasonable people, including other black people. I’m personally fine engaging with critiques about how the Civil Rights Act has ushered in some not-so-great policy decisions over the last half century. “Woke Institutions” might just be civil rights law in action (according to Hanania) but the civil rights law is also, like, the reason why I have basic rights. I think it’s completely reasonable for a black person to see arguments like that and think to themselves “what the actual fuck? The person who wrote that book is probably racist, and a conference hosting him might be racist too.” I think it is good to be curious about the world and interested in exploring unanswered questions so long as this is the true motivation. I take most people’s self-reports about their intentions at face value. I’m happy that Hanania has made his self-described Journey Out of Extremism, but I don’t fault anyone for being deeply skeptical about his intentions and whether or not he actually has made that journey given his current/past work.
I don’t know what the right path forward is wrt allowing certain speakers at Manifest, but I want to encourage people not to dismiss that “wtf” feeling many people have towards him and other speakers as lacking some kind of intellectual rigor or curiosity about the world.
I very much appreciate you sharing your thoughts here. While I see a fair bit of personal value in engaging with eg Hanania, I agree that there’s nothing dishonorable or shameful about not wanting to be in a place with the dynamic you describe. I agree that people who are skeptical towards speakers who have made edgy, offensive, or extreme statements should not be assumed to lack intellectual rigor or curiosity. I’m also glad to hear, and take it as a good sign, that many of the “edgy” people were nice to you and people were receptive when you raised the issues you saw at Manifest. Your comment touches on a lot of valuable points.
As for the path forward, I’m personally impressed by the call for “pluralist civility” in Folded Papers:
There is no universal safe space, nor should we try to make one. To do so would be to engage in a new version of the fallacy that made the old “rules of debate” so infuriating. “If you can’t make your point in this safe space, then it must be hateful and wrong” is just as false as “If your viewpoint can’t survive these debate rules, then it must be irrational.”
The only way out is to allow multiple sets of rules. That way, truths that are unsayable in one context can still be said in another. Other people can then respond, and the ideas can have the opportunity to be refined or critiqued from the local viewpoint. If we have multiple fora, we can have a system where pretty much anything can be said somewhere. [...]
Respect that discussion norms are local. Don’t try to make them universal.
Be part of the overlap. Belong to more than one community.
Encourage other people to recognise that discussion norms can and should differ from place to place.
Encourage other people to recognise that broad discussion norms are incredibly valuable and should be nurtured wherever they are compatible with community aims.
My own impression is that Manifest strikes a good balance for its goals. In the context of prediction markets, it’s uncommonly valuable to have people with a wide range of assumptions, some of whom are willing to go against consensus, even if that leads some into hot water. I don’t think controversial speakers should be sought out for their own sake, but if someone who has worthwhile, relevant things to say has also courted controversy, I think in the context of Manifest it would be a mistake not to invite them as a result. This seems to be the approach Manifest has taken. I don’t think those norms are appropriate everywhere, but I do think they’re appropriate somewhere, and Manifest has built something successful, rewarding, and compelling as a result, something that fits a niche other spaces do not.
I think it’s possible to assert that the approach Manifest takes is not the only appropriate approach to take, that inviting and excluding people always carry trade-offs and that some good people may not want to be in every environment, and that as it stands the conference accomplishes something wholly worth doing. That’s where I land.
Glad to see this perspective represented, everything I’ve read about this makes me think it’d have been a poor experience and the consistent arguments I see in favor of flavors of scientific racism in this community. It’s one thing to have opinions, it’s another to just ignore the amount of scholarship done on the topics folks like him spout off about, generally uninformed.
It’s most objectionable from a policy perspective, as I do not think folks like this need to be anywhere near policy making, nor should they be given platforms to influence malleable people on these topics without some kind of informed counterweight.
The consistent commentary here seems to imply there is no black person who would fit this bill, but given the rampant diversity of black folks across the spectrum in other political and academic spaces, it’s less that there aren’t people, and more that this siloed community seems hostile that sort of participation.
I was assigned female at birth and have been in tons of conversations where people talk about IQ differences between men and women and why that might explain why there are less women in STEM.
I never thought “wtf, they must secretly be sexist”.
I thought “Huh, interesting. I wonder if the evidence backs that up.”
Because I know I’m incredibly smart. The evidence is abundantly clear. And I know that people talking about group differences doesn’t say much about individual differences.
Women are also on average shorter than men, but I’m taller than most men. I don’t get offended or think that people are secretly saying I’m actually short.
Averages are different than individuals.
You can talk about differences between groups without it being sexist / racist / _____ist and thinking people are talking about you.
I think your reply misses the point of what I’ve said. I am not saying that “averages = individuals” or that you “can’t talk about differences between groups without it being sexist…. and thinking people are talking about you.”
My claim is that many people are skeptical about the intentions of people who spend their entire careers talking about those differences and how they should shape healthcare, policy, etc. I find some of that skepticism to be super reasonable (especially on the policy end), and I find it frustrating when that is reduced to what you’re saying above even though I default to a different approach personally.
I think I’m skeptical of people’s intentions too sometimes, but this seems to me more to apply to the person who asked Hanania a question than Hanania. I don’t like Hananai’s behaviour, but it doesn’t feel like he spends his whole time talking about group difference, here is a screenshot of his blog homepage. Perhaps there is some race discussion in the “dissident right” piece, but that seems like a pretty small percentage.
The upshot here is I’m not sure “people who spend their entire careers talking about those differences” is a good characterisation of the people who were speakers at manifest.
The anecdote from the conference was more about how those conversations made me feel which I should have been more clear about. This was prompted by Austin’s comments about how Manifest made people feel. I should have (maybe?) also said that Hanania answered in a way that made me uncomfortable, but I don’t think the details of that matter as I’m not advocating for something to change based on my discomfort. I’m unsure about my views on this, so I want to emphasize that this is (presently) not the case.
The statement about “people who spend their entire careers…” was a general statement about the “edgy” people and not necessarily about him (though I do think his book falls into the “reasonably skeptical” camp) which was also not super clear.
Have you considered all of the other intentions they might have and compared the probabilities of various hypotheses?
My top hypothesis is that for most of the prominent HBD intellectuals, their motivation is the usual “ooh, shiny, what an interesting idea” combined with some contrarian urges.
Like, when somebody censors a book, readership goes up.
I know the moment I hear that a book has been banned, I go download it. What don’t people want me to know?
Many people have the urge to talk about things if it’s been deemed taboo by society.
I really do not understand why you are asking me to explain a suspicion that I clearly said I don’t have. I mentioned in the original comment and in the reply that I do engage and consider the other possibilities that you mentioned. I read the books and blogs unless they are overtly racist and I have the time. I am saying that I don’t fault people people who don’t do that or have those defaults/reflexes.
Glad to hear it! But I think a little compassion is due here to the very common experience in this community of not being confident about one’s own intellect or abilities, or among people who are confident about themselves, very much not being confident that they will be perceived as capable and taken seriously by their peers.
It wasn’t intended as snide. I think it’s probably just hard to convey tone and emotions over text, especially in a heated conversation.
Sorry if it came across that way. I should definitely try to err more on the side of speaking extra nicely when commenting on the forum, to make up for all of the psychological forces pushing against it being interpreted that way.
(This comment is more of a general response to this post and others about Manifest than a response to what Austin has specifically said here)
I am a black person who attended Manifest, and I will say that I almost didn’t attend because of Hanania, but decided to anyway because my interest in it outweighed my disagreements with his work.
I walked past a conversation he was having where he was asked why he thinks “minorities [black people] perform so poorly in so many domains,” which did not feel great, but I also chatted to someone who runs a similar twitter as him and briefly told him my issues with it, which he was receptive to. I overall prefer cultures that give me space to have those sorts of conversations, but I do flinch a bit at the fact that my demographic is on the receiving end of so much of this. Many of the “edgy” people were super nice to me, I had fun conversations about other things with some of them, and their presence didn’t take away from my overall experience. I felt fine after those interactions, but many people wouldn’t. Perhaps they don’t “belong” at manifest, but that explanation isn’t very satisfying to me.
I think I’m much more tolerant of this sort of dynamic than many super reasonable people, including other black people. I’m personally fine engaging with critiques about how the Civil Rights Act has ushered in some not-so-great policy decisions over the last half century. “Woke Institutions” might just be civil rights law in action (according to Hanania) but the civil rights law is also, like, the reason why I have basic rights. I think it’s completely reasonable for a black person to see arguments like that and think to themselves “what the actual fuck? The person who wrote that book is probably racist, and a conference hosting him might be racist too.” I think it is good to be curious about the world and interested in exploring unanswered questions so long as this is the true motivation. I take most people’s self-reports about their intentions at face value. I’m happy that Hanania has made his self-described Journey Out of Extremism, but I don’t fault anyone for being deeply skeptical about his intentions and whether or not he actually has made that journey given his current/past work.
I don’t know what the right path forward is wrt allowing certain speakers at Manifest, but I want to encourage people not to dismiss that “wtf” feeling many people have towards him and other speakers as lacking some kind of intellectual rigor or curiosity about the world.
I very much appreciate you sharing your thoughts here. While I see a fair bit of personal value in engaging with eg Hanania, I agree that there’s nothing dishonorable or shameful about not wanting to be in a place with the dynamic you describe. I agree that people who are skeptical towards speakers who have made edgy, offensive, or extreme statements should not be assumed to lack intellectual rigor or curiosity. I’m also glad to hear, and take it as a good sign, that many of the “edgy” people were nice to you and people were receptive when you raised the issues you saw at Manifest. Your comment touches on a lot of valuable points.
As for the path forward, I’m personally impressed by the call for “pluralist civility” in Folded Papers:
My own impression is that Manifest strikes a good balance for its goals. In the context of prediction markets, it’s uncommonly valuable to have people with a wide range of assumptions, some of whom are willing to go against consensus, even if that leads some into hot water. I don’t think controversial speakers should be sought out for their own sake, but if someone who has worthwhile, relevant things to say has also courted controversy, I think in the context of Manifest it would be a mistake not to invite them as a result. This seems to be the approach Manifest has taken. I don’t think those norms are appropriate everywhere, but I do think they’re appropriate somewhere, and Manifest has built something successful, rewarding, and compelling as a result, something that fits a niche other spaces do not.
I think it’s possible to assert that the approach Manifest takes is not the only appropriate approach to take, that inviting and excluding people always carry trade-offs and that some good people may not want to be in every environment, and that as it stands the conference accomplishes something wholly worth doing. That’s where I land.
Glad to see this perspective represented, everything I’ve read about this makes me think it’d have been a poor experience and the consistent arguments I see in favor of flavors of scientific racism in this community. It’s one thing to have opinions, it’s another to just ignore the amount of scholarship done on the topics folks like him spout off about, generally uninformed.
It’s most objectionable from a policy perspective, as I do not think folks like this need to be anywhere near policy making, nor should they be given platforms to influence malleable people on these topics without some kind of informed counterweight.
The consistent commentary here seems to imply there is no black person who would fit this bill, but given the rampant diversity of black folks across the spectrum in other political and academic spaces, it’s less that there aren’t people, and more that this siloed community seems hostile that sort of participation.
I was assigned female at birth and have been in tons of conversations where people talk about IQ differences between men and women and why that might explain why there are less women in STEM.
I never thought “wtf, they must secretly be sexist”.
I thought “Huh, interesting. I wonder if the evidence backs that up.”
Because I know I’m incredibly smart. The evidence is abundantly clear. And I know that people talking about group differences doesn’t say much about individual differences.
Women are also on average shorter than men, but I’m taller than most men. I don’t get offended or think that people are secretly saying I’m actually short.
Averages are different than individuals.
You can talk about differences between groups without it being sexist / racist / _____ist and thinking people are talking about you.
I think your reply misses the point of what I’ve said. I am not saying that “averages = individuals” or that you “can’t talk about differences between groups without it being sexist…. and thinking people are talking about you.”
My claim is that many people are skeptical about the intentions of people who spend their entire careers talking about those differences and how they should shape healthcare, policy, etc. I find some of that skepticism to be super reasonable (especially on the policy end), and I find it frustrating when that is reduced to what you’re saying above even though I default to a different approach personally.
I think I’m skeptical of people’s intentions too sometimes, but this seems to me more to apply to the person who asked Hanania a question than Hanania. I don’t like Hananai’s behaviour, but it doesn’t feel like he spends his whole time talking about group difference, here is a screenshot of his blog homepage. Perhaps there is some race discussion in the “dissident right” piece, but that seems like a pretty small percentage.
The upshot here is I’m not sure “people who spend their entire careers talking about those differences” is a good characterisation of the people who were speakers at manifest.
The anecdote from the conference was more about how those conversations made me feel which I should have been more clear about. This was prompted by Austin’s comments about how Manifest made people feel. I should have (maybe?) also said that Hanania answered in a way that made me uncomfortable, but I don’t think the details of that matter as I’m not advocating for something to change based on my discomfort. I’m unsure about my views on this, so I want to emphasize that this is (presently) not the case.
The statement about “people who spend their entire careers…” was a general statement about the “edgy” people and not necessarily about him (though I do think his book falls into the “reasonably skeptical” camp) which was also not super clear.
I appreciate it, thank you.
Appreciate it. I wish more people thought this way.
Why are you suspicious of their intentions?
Have you considered all of the other intentions they might have and compared the probabilities of various hypotheses?
My top hypothesis is that for most of the prominent HBD intellectuals, their motivation is the usual “ooh, shiny, what an interesting idea” combined with some contrarian urges.
Like, when somebody censors a book, readership goes up.
I know the moment I hear that a book has been banned, I go download it. What don’t people want me to know?
Many people have the urge to talk about things if it’s been deemed taboo by society.
I really do not understand why you are asking me to explain a suspicion that I clearly said I don’t have. I mentioned in the original comment and in the reply that I do engage and consider the other possibilities that you mentioned. I read the books and blogs unless they are overtly racist and I have the time. I am saying that I don’t fault people people who don’t do that or have those defaults/reflexes.
Oh you’re right. My bad. So many threads going on here and I got mixed up. Sorry about that.
Glad you’re not suspicious of them!
Glad to hear it! But I think a little compassion is due here to the very common experience in this community of not being confident about one’s own intellect or abilities, or among people who are confident about themselves, very much not being confident that they will be perceived as capable and taken seriously by their peers.
But they are not talking about you or perceiving you as less intelligent.
They are talking about averages.
Just because you feel like people are talking about you does not mean that they are.
This feels unnecessary. This topic is hard enough without snideness.
It wasn’t intended as snide. I think it’s probably just hard to convey tone and emotions over text, especially in a heated conversation.
Sorry if it came across that way. I should definitely try to err more on the side of speaking extra nicely when commenting on the forum, to make up for all of the psychological forces pushing against it being interpreted that way.